Critique

Analyzing Arguments

The Aristotelian Appeals More than two thousand years ago, Aristotle identified three types of appeals that a speaker or writer might use to persuade an audience. Aristotle's categories have proven remarkably durable, and they are something that you will want to keep in mind as you analyze arguments and construct your own. This handout contains brief descriptions of each of the appeals, together with some questions that will help you use these terms to analyze arguments.

LOGOS: Logical Appeals refer to arguments derived from the nature of the case, or from information about the topic or issue under discussion. For example, an automotive advertisement that provides performance data on the vehicle being marketed is making a logical appeal.

ETHOS: Ethical Appeals are arguments derived from the character of the person (or group) making the argument. For Example, an ad is making an ethical appeal when it reminds us of how long a company has been in business or of how environmentally responsible the company is.

PATHOS: Pathetic Appeals refer not to pitiful arguments but rather to arguments derived from the character of the audience. For example, ads make pathetic appeals when they address the needs, desires, fears, or sympathies of the consumer. Of course, most arguments will make use of all three kinds of appeals. The age-old excuse, "my dog ate my paper," for example, may be pathetic in more ways than one, but, in the Aristotelian sense, this claim is pathetic because it appeals to the sympathy or tolerance of its intended audience.

At the same time, however, the statement implies both a logical appeal ("I can't submit a paper that no longer exists) and, more weakly, an ethical one ("I may be unlucky, but I'm a dog lover"). In analyzing and evaluating arguments, it is therefore useful to consider how the three kinds of appeals are balanced: What form of appeal dominates the argument? How well does the type of appeal being used match the subject matter of the arguments? The type of audience addressed? The character of the speaker or writer? What is the relationship between the different forms of appeal used in the argument? (For example, do the logical and ethical elements of the argument support or undermine its pathetic appeal?)

Logical Fallacies

Logical Fallacies are errors, confusions, and failures of logic and argumentation that we find in both written and oral discourse. Learning about logical fallacies is useful for two reasons. First, such knowledge provides one with a way to examine the arguments of authors that one reads and (possibly) argues against. Knowledge of logical fallacies can also help one critique one's own arguments.

Oversimplification: The fallacy of oversimplification involves the use of generalizations that are so broad that they oversimplify the truth.

Suppressed Alternative (False Dichotomy): This fallacy presents two options as an either/or choice (either we get tough on drug users or we give up and legalize drugs). The fallacy lies in the fact that decisions are rarely so simple. There are many options other than toughening drug laws and decriminalizing drugs, such as education and counseling, active detoxification programs, and so on. This fallacy ignores the existence of significant options and focuses (usually) on extreme binaries.

Ad Hominem: An ad hominem argument (an argement directed "against the person") attempts to defeat a theory or argument by attacking the credentials and motives of its author.

Non sequitur: ("It does not follow"). This fallacy is distinguished by reasoning or evidence that is exceptionally irrelevant to the claim being made. Ex. Cats are evil because they run too fast.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After this, therefore because of this): This fallacy confuses a temporal relationship with a causal relationship: "I shot the cat because I broke my leg after it crossed my path."

Logic and Rush Limbaugh

1. Here's Rush attacking Al Gore's critique of US environmental policies:

"There is something intrinsically anti-American about the way Gore flagellates the US over its environmental policies. He writes that cultures are like families and our civilization must be considered in some way dysfunctional because of its brutal assault on nature. This from a guy who gets lost in a park with the Secret Service" (L 163-164).

Gore says that our civilization must be considered dysfunctional in its treatment of the environment. But Gore got lost in a park. Implication: that because got lost we can dismiss his view that our civilization is dysfunctional. Which logical fallacy is Limbaugh using? Why?

2. Here Limbaugh attacks the theory of ozone depletion:

"Has anything man ever done even approximated the radiation and explosive force of a super nova (which Rush says occurred over 340,000 years ago and disrupted 10 to 20 percent of the ozone layer)? And if prehistoric man merely got a sunburn, how is it that we are going to destroy the ozone layer with our air conditioners and underarm deodorants and cause everybody to get cancer? Obviously, we're not . . . and we can't . . . and it's a hoax" (L 178).

A super nova 340,000 years ago disrupted the ozone layer but did little harm to humans. The force of what man has done is tiny compared with that of a super nova. Implication(s): The addition of human-made chemicals (such as aerosols/CFCs) to the atmosphere can't result in increased cancer from ozone depletion. The claim that human-made chemicals cause cancer through ozone depletion is a hoax. Which logical fallacy is Limbaugh using?

3. Here Rush attacks the environmental movement and Tom Cruise:

"There were 750,000 people in New York's Central Park recently for Earth Day. They were . . . listening to Tom Cruise talk about how we have to recycle everything and stop corporations from polluting. Excuse me. Didn't Tom Cruise make a stock-car movie in which he destroyed thirty-five cars, [and] burned thousands of tires? If I were given the opportunity, I'd say to Tom Cruise, "Tom, most people don't own thirty-five cars in their life, and you just trashed thirty-five cars for a movie. Now you are telling other people not to pollute the planet? Shut sir." (Things 158).

Tom Cruise says we have to recycle everything and stop corporations from polluting. But Tom Cruise made a movie in which he destroyed thirty-five cars. Implication: Tom Cruise is a hypocrite Tom Cruise is a hypocrite. Implication(s): He has no right to say what ought to be done about pollution. We can justifiably ignore his recommendations. Which logical fallacy is Limbaugh using?

4. Here Limbaugh attacks the notion that animals have a right to kindness:

"One woman called my show to protest that animals do at least have one right: to kindness. I told her she was mistaken. Look at what they do to each other. They tear each other limb from limb" (Things 105).

Animals tear each other limb from limb. Implication: Animals do not have a right to kindness. Which logical fallacy is Limbaugh using? Animals tear each other limb from limb. (Unexpressed premise)Whatever tears its fellow creatures limb from limb does not have a right to kindness. Implication: Animals do not have a right to kindness. Does it work this time? Some animals tear each other limb from limb. (Unexpressed premise)Whatever tears its fellow creatures limb from limb does not have a right to kindness. Implication: Some animals do not have a right to kindness. Does it work this time?

5. Limbaugh on the question of genocide:

"There are now more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does that sound like a record of genocide?" (L 68).

The American Indian population is larger today than in Columbus' time. The Indian population did not suffer genocide. Which fallacy is Rush using?

Critical Reading Report

Before You Read:

Rhetorical Questions

1. Who is the author?

2. When is he/she writing?

3. What audience is he/she writing for?

The Argument:

Reading as a Believer

1. What question is the writer trying to answer? What is the author's purpose?

2. Write a paragraph length summary of the argument.

3. What are the main reasons the writer gives his/her position?

4. What types of support does the writer offer for those reasons (Statistics? History?)?

5. What points do you agree with the author about?

6. What is the most important thing you learned from the essay?

The Critique:

Reading as a Doubter

1. Did you "lose" the argument at any point? Was this due to a gap in reasoning?

2. What assumptions does the writer make?

3. Do the writer's reasons logically support his/her position?

4. Does the writer offer enough support for his/her positions?

5. Are the writer's facts verifiable?

6. What points do you disagree with the author about?

7. What tone does the writer take toward the opposition? Toward the audience?

8. Does the writer address the main counterarguments of the opposing viewpoint?

9. Did your position change as a result of reading this piece, or is your original position better supported as a result of this piece?